Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On 3/9/24 4:13 PM, Duncan wrote: > I'm not saying don't use gentoo -- I'm a gentooer after all -- I'm saying > gentoo simply isn't in a good position to condemn AI for its energy > inefficiency. In fact, I'd claim that in the Gentoo case there are > demonstrably more energy efficient practical alternatives (can anyone > sanely argue otherwise?, there are binary distros after all), while in the > AI case, for some usage AI is providing practical solutions where there > simply /weren't/ practical solutions /at/ /all/ before. In others, > availability and scale was practically and severely cost-limiting compared > to the situation with AI. At least in those cases despite high energy > usage, AI *is* the most efficient -- arguably including energy efficient > -- practical alternative, being the _only_ practical alternative, at least > at scale. Can Gentoo _ever_ be called the _only_ practical alternative, > at scale or not? > > Over all, I'd suggest that Gentoo is in as bad or worse a situation in > terms of most energy efficient practical alternative than AI, so it simply > can't credibly make the energy efficiency argument against AI. Debian/ > RedHat/etc, perhaps, a case could be reasonably made at least, Gentoo, no, > not credibly. FWIW I am not really convinced of this claim... gentoo is not a monoculture, I could have installed Gentoo in 2012 and was strongly tempted but did not because it didn't have binpkgs, but being an early adopter of https://www.gentoo.org/news/2023/12/29/Gentoo-binary.html is the single reason I have a Gentoo system today. There you go, Gentoo is a binary distro. (If you want it to be one.) You are not required to waste energy in order to use Gentoo. Leaving that aside, I think it's a bit of a red herring to claim that one must be *as energy efficient as possible* in order to have the right to criticize technologies that use orders of magnitude more energy and don't come with an option to avoid spending said energy. You also note that AI is providing practical solutions "where none existed before, for some cases". But I really, really, REALLY don't think this is the case for AI-backed contributions to Gentoo, which plainly do have an exceedingly practical solution that has been in use for a couple decades so far. So we could perhaps agree that LLMs may not be intrinsically an impractical energy waste, but using them to contribute to Gentoo *is*? :) -- Eli Schwartz OpenPGP_0x84818A6819AF4A9B.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
Michał Górny posted on Sat, 09 Mar 2024 16:04:58 +0100 as excerpted: > On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 03:59 +, Duncan wrote: >> Robin H. Johnson posted on Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:12:06 + as excerpted: >> >> > The energy waste argument is also one that needs to be made >> > carefully: >> >> Indeed. In a Gentoo context, condemning AI for the computative energy >> waste? Maybe someone could argue that effectively. That someone isn't >> Gentoo. Something about people living in glass houses throwing >> stones... > > Could you support that claim with actual numbers? Particularly, > on average energy use specifically due to use of Gentoo on machines vs. > energy use of dedicated data centers purely for training LLMs? I'm not > even talking of all the energy wasted as a result of these LLMs at work. Fair question. Actual numbers? No. But... I'm not saying don't use gentoo -- I'm a gentooer after all -- I'm saying gentoo simply isn't in a good position to condemn AI for its energy inefficiency. In fact, I'd claim that in the Gentoo case there are demonstrably more energy efficient practical alternatives (can anyone sanely argue otherwise?, there are binary distros after all), while in the AI case, for some usage AI is providing practical solutions where there simply /weren't/ practical solutions /at/ /all/ before. In others, availability and scale was practically and severely cost-limiting compared to the situation with AI. At least in those cases despite high energy usage, AI *is* the most efficient -- arguably including energy efficient -- practical alternative, being the _only_ practical alternative, at least at scale. Can Gentoo _ever_ be called the _only_ practical alternative, at scale or not? Over all, I'd suggest that Gentoo is in as bad or worse a situation in terms of most energy efficient practical alternative than AI, so it simply can't credibly make the energy efficiency argument against AI. Debian/ RedHat/etc, perhaps, a case could be reasonably made at least, Gentoo, no, not credibly. That isn't to say that Gentoo can't credibly take an anti-AI position based on the /other/ points discussed in-thread. But energy usage is just not an argument that can be persuasively made by Gentoo, thereby bringing down the credibility of the other arguments made with it that are otherwise viable. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On Fri, 2024-03-08 at 03:59 +, Duncan wrote: > Robin H. Johnson posted on Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:12:06 + as excerpted: > > > The energy waste argument is also one that needs to be made carefully: > > Indeed. In a Gentoo context, condemning AI for the computative energy > waste? Maybe someone could argue that effectively. That someone isn't > Gentoo. Something about people living in glass houses throwing stones... Could you support that claim with actual numbers? Particularly, on average energy use specifically due to use of Gentoo on machines vs. energy use of dedicated data centers purely for training LLMs? I'm not even talking of all the energy wasted as a result of these LLMs at work. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
Robin H. Johnson posted on Tue, 5 Mar 2024 06:12:06 + as excerpted: > The energy waste argument is also one that needs to be made carefully: Indeed. In a Gentoo context, condemning AI for the computative energy waste? Maybe someone could argue that effectively. That someone isn't Gentoo. Something about people living in glass houses throwing stones... (And overall, I just don't see the original proposal aging well; like a regulation that all drivers must carry a buggy-whip... =:^ Absolutely, tweak existing policies with some added AI context here or there as others have already suggested, but let's leave it at that.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
